Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

Hi Amicus listeners. Some of you might be familiar with The Waves, Slate’s podcast about feminism and gender, which has been around for years in various forms. The Waves went on hiatus at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, but I’m glad to say that it is back. Every Thursday, you’ll find a new episode in your feed, looking at the news and culture through the lens of gender. We thought Amicus listeners would enjoy this week’s episode, featuring a conversation between Slate's Christina Cauterucci and Robin Marty, author of The New Handbook for a Post-Roe America, gaming out the potential post-Roe future. If you like it, please subscribe to The Waves wherever you get your podcasts.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi Amicus listeners. Some of you might be familiar with The Waves, Slate’s podcast about feminism and gender, which has been around for years in various forms. The Waves went on hiatus at the beginning of the COVID pandemic, but I’m glad to say that it is back. Every Thursday, you’ll find a new episode in your feed, looking at the news and culture through the lens of gender. We thought Amicus listeners would enjoy this week’s episode, featuring a conversation between Slate's Christina Cauterucci and Robin Marty, author of The New Handbook for a Post-Roe America, gaming out the potential post-Roe future. If you like it, please subscribe to The Waves wherever you get your podcasts.

---

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

I know I say this a lot but... this episode is action packed! So much good stuff to discuss that we had to squeeze in the Trump grand jury news into the announcements slot. Andrew breaks down what it means and what to expect. Then, a listener who actually worked on the NRA case wrote in to give us the final word on Sea Girt. But in our main segment, Andrew gives us the full breakdown on the asinine social media law Florida just passed. Eyes, look your last, because this thing is destined for the trash bin. Find out why! Then, we squeezed in a wildcard segment, if you can believe it. Did Alan Dershowitz win a defamation case against CNN? (no) Links: NRA Annual Matches Move To Sea Girt In 1892, 28 US Code § 1408, FL social media law, 47 U.S. Code § 230, Dershowitz v. CNN Order on MTD

Kate, Melissa, and Leah notice the siren song of purposivism in some of the Court’s recent statutory interpretation cases. They also talk about developments on the Court’s death penalty docket before going through one of their binders of women advocates & advocates of color.

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 6/12 – NYC
• 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky

For more than 50 years, any discussion of criminal defense attorneys, legal academics, and civil libertarians - as well as staunch advocates for Israel -  included Professor Alan Dershowitz.  Today he joins “Amarica’s Constitution” for a far-ranging conversation.  Torture warrants, Trump’s misdeeds, the life of a principled advocate and his family, censorship in social media, campus speech, the Israeli Supreme Court - all fall under his gaze, and our scrutiny.  We also discuss Prof. Dershowitz’s new book, “The Case Against The New Censorship.”

On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.The issue was was whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.
In a 7-1 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding, “Where defendant energy companies premised 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d) removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, Section 1442, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all grounds for removal rejected by the district court.”
Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Karen Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, joins us to discuss this decision.

On April 1, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Facebook Inc. v. Duguid. The issue was whether the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”
In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotamayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “To qualify as an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, a device must have the capacity either to store, or to produce, a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.” This decision narrows the federal robocoll ban.
Scott D. Delacourt, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP and Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law at Boston College School of Law, joins us today for a conversation moderated by Danielle Thumann, Attorney Advisor for FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Today Andrew breaks down Fox's motion to dismiss the Dominion lawsuit. Dominion has mountains of evidence of defamation. Fox... disagREES. Find out how their defense holds up! We also talk about the surprisingly high number of delightful emails we got about Seagirt from Australians. And finally an Andrew was slightly wrong about some Asbestos bankruptcy stuff! Links: Dominion complaint, Fox motion to dismiss, NY CPLR Rule 3211, Coomer Colorado lawsuit, Newsmax retraction, another Newsmax retraction, Newsmax Withdraws False Claims About 2020 Election, Powell motion to dismiss, Dominion response

On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Vannoy. The issue was whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding, “The jury-unanimity rule announced in Ramos v. Louisiana does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.”
Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.
Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.

Melissa, Kate, and Leah break down the recent cert grants, the oral argument in Terry v. United States, and the opinions in Edwards v. Vannoy, CIC v. IRS, Caniglia v. Strom, & BP v. Baltimore. They then workshop their reviews of Justice Breyer’s forthcoming book before highlighting some exciting Supreme Court-related book reviews.

Get tickets for STRICT SCRUTINY LIVE – The Bad Decisions Tour 2025! 

• 6/12 – NYC
• 10/4 – Chicago

Learn more: http://crooked.com/events

Order your copy of Leah's book, Lawless: How the Supreme Court Runs on Conservative Grievance, Fringe Theories, and Bad Vibes

Follow us on Instagram, Threads, and Bluesky